Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The whole point of the DMA is break Apple’s monopoly on the iPhone apps, so it is this requirement that will eventually be removed: Apple will be free not to sign an agreement with other parties, but the other parties will not need such agreement to create other app stores or publish apps in them.

All I can do is facepalm at how Apple is shooting themselves in the foot. If they acted like a good gatekeeper in spirit of the DMA, they could have kept all the security provisions they have put in place (which are good IMO). But this action show that they cannot be trusted to be fair and non-discriminatory (which is required by the DMA) and they indeed risk that the EC will require that they allow third-party app stores without any agreement with Apple.

Apple is also being truly hypocritical about the DMA in general. They write passive-aggressive messaging every opportunity they get to talk about the DMA. But you rarely hear them, let alone write in the way they do, about all the modifications they make to accommodate the PRC.

At this point, Apple should try to smooth things out with the EU (out of responsibility towards their users) rather than continuously antagonize the EU. It is a battle they cannot win (they are not lawmakers). In that way they could keep more protections up that (probably) most iPhone users want.
 
Of course this was going to happen. This will just be another humiliation for Apple which will be forced to backtrack one of their immoral decisions yet again. I also laugh at all the people who were saying this wasn’t going to happen because these are two American companies and an American tribunal deemed this acceptable. First of all the subsidiaries involved are very much European so American tribunals sentences have no value, but most importantly the real issue is that one requires an Apple account to publish outside the App Store, which is of course what eventually will be ripped apart by the EU.
Why. The court stated they were allowed to. If the EU wants to go against court rulings with their own BS rules. Businesses will pull out. Epic have breach TOS which is effectively a contract.
 
Ultimately, this is a battle of two multi-billion-£££ companies fighting over how they divi up OUR money.
They are both pretty vile.

Apple sales in Europe are now bigger than China - it's interesting who they choose to pick a fight with
 
Last edited:
Yes, Epic is b.tch.
But everything around competition/commissions and all starting to have an effect on Apple's reputation. For now only amongst developers, but I don't think Apple should let this stain their image for general users. They make no money at all on their biggest "partners" (like Epic, Spotify, Netflix, etc.) because they are so stubborn to have everything in their own terms only. They should have figured out a way to be in business with them in good faith, rather than being forced to do it via courts.
I really do not understand why Apple should earn money for each and every subscription on a monthly basis. Or put it differently: why I as an iPhone owner should pay part of my Netflix subscription fee to Apple? Because I can use iPhone to watch movies? I can understand taking 1-2% as a transaction fee related to each payment if done through App Store. That is fair. But 15-30% cut? I thought that large availability of apps (especially from those "biggest partners") is beneficial to Apple as no one would buy iPhones/iPads is there were no such apps there in the first place... If only Apple could figure out how to force Amazon or eBay to pay 15-30% cut for all the things they sell in via their iOS apps...
 
At this point, Apple should try to smooth things out with the EU (out of responsibility towards their users) rather than continuously antagonize the EU. It is a battle they cannot win (they are not lawmakers). In that way they could keep more protections up that (probably) most iPhone users want.
Apple didn’t pick this fight. I don’t think this is a case of mediation because the EU are flexing. Maybe in the future.

Maybe Epic could have come to the table instead of whining like babies because they can’t get their fantasy world, baby game on the market on their own terms.. OMG. I just had a flash back many years ago when my 2 year old was stamping their feet crying and whining for 10 minutes. Thanks Epic!

There are more important things going on in Europe than writing code to scam people out of "V-Bucks".
 
  • Like
Reactions: FCX and Yujenisis
A supermarket chain can delist a confectionary manufacturer, no problem with that. However, if there is only one supermarket chain and that chain delists third-party products in favour of their own brands, then it becomes a case of them acting as a monopoly.

Just to avoid having the Apple is/is not a monopoly discussion again. Under the DMA you do not have to be a monopoly to be considered a gatekeeper. So, the monopoly discussion is irrelevant. There are cumulative criteria:

  • Annual turnover in the EEA of 7.5B or more.
  • 45M active monthly users in the EU and more than 10,000 yearly active business users.
  • Entrenched and durable position: previous criterion for each of the last three financial years.
 
Of course this was going to happen. This will just be another humiliation for Apple which will be forced to backtrack one of their immoral decisions yet again. I also laugh at all the people who were saying this wasn’t going to happen because these are two American companies and an American tribunal deemed this acceptable. First of all the subsidiaries involved are very much European so American tribunals sentences have no value, but most importantly the real issue is that one requires an Apple account to publish outside the App Store, which is of course what eventually will be ripped apart by the EU.
Just a reminder that Epic is multi billion dollar company. None of this is about improving your consumer experience.

All of this is about moving profit margins from one company to another.
 
Just to avoid having the Apple is/is not a monopoly discussion again. Under the DMA you do not have to be a monopoly to be considered a gatekeeper. So, the monopoly discussion is irrelevant. There are cumulative criteria:

  • Annual turnover in the EEA of 7.5B or more.
  • 45M active monthly users in the EU and more than 10,000 yearly active business users.
  • Entrenched and durable position: previous criterion for each of the last three financial years.

I wish more people would get this. It is about entrenchment of a country's people and businesses.
 
Apple is also being truly hypocritical about the DMA in general. They write passive-aggressive messaging every opportunity they get to talk about the DMA.
Apple did something similar with the USB connector of the iPhone
Alex Agius Saliba, a Maltese social democrat who led the work on the common charger file, recalls how Apple executives were "nearly laughing at us" when lawmakers brought up the issue during a visit to the iPhone manufacturer about three years ago.

"They were totally brushing us off when it comes to the common charger, not even replying to us," he told POLITICO in an interview ahead of the iPhone launch.
 
Shutting down developer account is effectively just shutting down access to technologies. Because now Epic can't even distribute outside the App Store without provisioning profiles.
That’s bad? Why should Apple be forced to work with a company it doesn’t want to do business with for only the other companies gain?
 
Ultimately, this is a battle of two multi-billion-£££ companies fighting over how they divi up OUR money.
They are both pretty vile.

Apple sales in Europe are now bigger than China - it's interesting who they choose to pick a fight with
problem with EU is thats its a saturated market
yes, they sell a lot there, but there are simply no new consumers coming in. just new sales to existing ones. china on the other hand has massive growth potential.

which is why apple bends heavily in china.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FangRock
I really do not understand why Apple should earn money for each and every subscription on a monthly basis. Or put it differently: why I as an iPhone owner should pay part of my Netflix subscription fee to Apple? Because I can use iPhone to watch movies? I can understand taking 1-2% as a transaction fee related to each payment if done through App Store.
They applied the same principles to subscription as they did for one time payment. Personally I think 15-30% is fine for one time payment app. It's ridiculous for monthly subscriptions/micro payments. Even if they have applied 1% in past for these big players, they could have made billions by now. They made nothing as they all opted out, and now they will pay 2 billions in fines. I'm failing to see even Apple's business side here.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.